Evidence mapPaperPMID 41018177Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025

Evaluating machine learning models for stroke prediction based on clinical variables.

Patrick O Akinwumi, Stephen Ojo, Thomas I Nathaniel, James Wanliss, Olukayode Karunwi, Mercy Sulaiman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Patrick O AkinwumiCollege of Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
Stephen OjoCollege of Engineering, Anderson University, Anderson, SC, United States.
Thomas I NathanielSchool of Medicine Greenville, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.
James WanlissCollege of Engineering, Anderson University, Anderson, SC, United States.
Olukayode KarunwiCollege of Arts and Sciences, Anderson University, Anderson, SC, United States.
Mercy SulaimanDepartment of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Stroke remains one of the leading causes of global mortality and long-term disability, driving the urgent need for accurate and early risk prediction tools. Traditional models such as the Framingham Stroke Risk Score have provided foundational insights into stroke prevention but are constrained by linear assumptions and limited adaptability to complex real-world data. In contrast, machine learning (ML) techniques offer the ability to model non-linear relationships and interactions among diverse clinical and demographic variables, supporting more personalized and flexible risk prediction. Methods: This study evaluates five supervised ML algorithms, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN), using a publicly available dataset from Kaggle. Following class imbalance correction, models were assessed using multiple metrics including accuracy, ROC-AUC, and confusion matrices. Results: Logistic Regression and Gradient Boosting achieved the highest accuracy (95.11%) and ROC-AUC (0.836), although all models demonstrated poor recall, reflecting challenges in identifying rare stroke cases. Feature importance analysis using the Random Forest model identified age, average glucose level, and BMI as the most influential predictors of stroke, aligning with the Metabolic Syndrome Hypothesis and previous epidemiological findings. Discussion: These findings underscore both the promise and current limitations of ML in stroke risk prediction and highlight the need for future research leveraging multi-modal datasets and advanced algorithmic strategies to enhance sensitivity and clinical utility.

Indexed as

clinical decision support systemsfeature importance analysisimbalanced data handlingmachine learning in healthcarepredictive modellingstroke risk prediction

Identifiers

PMID41018177
PMCPMC12463612

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.